reciprocal teaching with buddy to improve metacognitive

Reciprocal Teaching with Buddy to Improve Metacognitive Strategies of a High

School Student with Reading Comprehension Difficulties

Rizki Mustikaa and Lucia RM Royantob*

aMasters and Professional Educational Psychology Program, Department of Educational Psychology,

Faculty of Psychology, Universitas Indonesia, Depok, Indonesia; bDepartment of Educational

Psychology, Faculty of Psychology, Universitas Indonesia, Depok, Indonesia

*Corresponding Author:

Lucia RM Royanto

Educational Psychology Department

Faculty of Psychology, Universitas Indonesia

Jl. Lkr. Kampus Raya, Depok, Jawa Barat

Indonesia, 16424

Tel.: +62 217270004

email address: [email protected]

454Copyright © 2018, the Authors. Published by Atlantis Press. This is an open access article under the CC BY-NC license (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc/4.0/).

1st International Conference on Intervention and Applied Psychology (ICIAP 2017)Advances in Social Science, Education and Humanities Research (ASSEHR), volume 135

Reciprocal Teaching with Buddy to Improve Metacognitive Strategies of High

School Students with Reading Comprehension Difficulties

Reading is a complicated activity that involves cognitive and metacognitive strategies. Metacognitive

strategies can be used to understand a text. Metacognitive strategies can help individuals to regulate

their knowledge, manipulate information, and reflect understanding, to capture the meaning of the

text. The objective of this research is to examine whether intervention program with reciprocal

teaching carried out by a buddy can improve metacognitive strategies used by the student. This

research is conducted using single-subject design to a high school student with reading

comprehension difficulties. The program consisted of four phases, i.e. preparation, baseline, treatment,

and evaluation. During the baseline phase, metacognitive strategies were measured. During the

treatment phase, the subject received learning program with reciprocal teaching and buddy reading.

His metacognitive strategies were measured afterward. The result showed that there was an

improvement in the variety and type of metacognitive strategies used by the subject while reading.

This research cannot determine whether the reading difficulties are tackled. However the difficulties to

understand are slightly overcome.

Keywords: metacognitive strategies, reciprocal teaching, buddy, high school student

Introduction

Reading is an important activity in human life. By reading, someone can acquire knowledge,

develop insight, enrich the mindset, and learn new things. Reading is also important at all levels of

education, since elementary school until higher education. At school, reading is the most regular

activity that involved in the learning process, and it is undeniable that reading ability is the

foundation for students' academic development (Lyon, Shaywitz, & Shaywitz, cited in Sanford,

2015).

Unfortunately, reading ability becomes a challenge for almost every country. In 2015, the

Organization for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD) conducted a research on

reading, science and mathematics, named the Program for International Student Assessment (PISA).

The study involved research participants from 72 countries around the world, including Indonesia,

and aimed to see the academic performance of 15-year-old students in mathematics, science, and

reading. The results showed that on average as many as 20% of the students in these countries do

not meet the minimum standards of reading ability. The results also showed that Indonesia is among

the 10 countries with the lowest academic performance, including reading. In reading ability,

Indonesia's score is far below average and that means many Indonesian students have difficulties in

reading.

The phenomena of reading difficulties can be found in students from all levels of education,

however high school students, are the most groups who need help to overcome the reading

difficulties (Twomey, 2006). Their reading difficulties can cause many troubles, because the

curriculum of secondary school only focuses on mastery the subject, and therefore, reading skills is

not taught anymore (Westwood, 2008). In high school, students are assumed to have learned basic

reading skills in previous level (Larkin & Ellis, in Twomey, 2006), so that teachers no longer

provide special treatment to help students with reading problems.

The Regulation of the Minister of Education and Culture of the Republic of Indonesia Number 68

and 69 (2013) also indicates that high school students have more complex of core competencies.

They are not only expected to master reading materials, but also are required to analyze the

information obtained using the knowledge already possessed. With these big demands, high school

students who have difficulty in reading will face bigger challenges. To overcome this, students need

to have adequate reading skills, especially in reading comprehension.

455

Advances in Social Science, Education and Humanities Research (ASSEHR), volume 135

According to Underwood (in Novotny & Grace, 2011) reading comprehension is the most important

reading skill possessed by high school students. The students who have good reading

comprehension will be able to master the subjects and achieve academic success (Novotny &

Grace, 2011). For high school students in Indonesia, reading comprehension is needed to master

lessons and meet the core competencies mentioned previously. By fulfilling core competencies,

students can demonstrate good academic performance in schools. According to Block (2004),

reading comprehension is an active process supported by thought processes, knowledge,

expectations, and reading objectives. It appears that understanding the text need more complex

process than just reading.

According to Santrock (2011), to be able to understand the texts, an individual requires

metacognitive skills. Flavell, as cited in Papaleontiou-Louca (2008) stated that metacognition is a

person's knowledge of his or her cognitive processes. This relates to the individual's skills in

regulating his or her thinking activity to use the right strategy in performing a task (Flavell, 1981).

Metacognition consists of three factors, namely personal factors, task factors, and strategy (Flavell,

as cited in Velzen, 2016). Personal factors relate to personal knowledge of his or her strengths and

weaknesses in thinking, task factors relate to personal knowledge of the difficulty level of a task,

and the strategy factor is personal knowledge of tactics or the ways to accomplish a task and to

achieve a particular goal. Personal factors and personal tasks can be learned individually by

individuals, but strategic factors need to be taught so that individuals can use them to deal with

specific tasks.

In reading, there are many strategies used, however, the number, type, and the way of using them

are different from one student to another (Royanto, 2012). Therefore, the metacognitive strategies

used by everyone are different. Royanto (2012) mentioned that in grade 3, there are 16

metacognitive strategies used by individuals when reading. Those include aware-knowing, text

evaluating, defining, repeating, asking for information, knowledge evaluating, paraphrasing,

verifying, and drawing a conclusion. The sum of strategies and the effectiveness of the strategies

used depend on how expert the student in reading. The more expert the students, the more effective

strategies they use.

In understanding a text, metacognitive strategies help individuals regulate their knowledge,

manipulate information obtained from the text, and reflect understanding, to capture the meaning of

the text (Block, 2004). Research conducted by Pressley and Harris (as cited in Clark, 2003)

suggested that metacognitive strategies have a positive impact on reading comprehension. Haller,

Child, and Walberg (as cited in Clark, 2003) examined further and found that metacognitive

strategies can effectively improve reading comprehension. Additionally, Block (2004) stated that

the use of metacognitive strategies could improve achievement, motivation, and attitudes toward

reading. It is also mentioned that advanced readers usually use metacognitive strategies in reading

and comprehension (Block, 2004). Therefore, it can be concluded that by increasing the use of

metacognitive strategies, students' reading comprehension skills can be enhanced.

Taylor and Frye (1992), proposed five methods that can help students understand text, imagery,

self-questioning, group story mapping, reciprocal teaching, and text look backs. In the imagery

method, students are taught to picture an image that represents what they read. In self-questioning

students are taught to make their questions about the text. In reciprocal teaching students in groups

are taught understanding strategies (ask, clarify, summarize, and predict), then students alternately

play a role as a teacher. The text look backs method helps students to answer questions about the

text that have been read. Group story mapping is similar to self-questioning method, but in group

story mapping students are asked to write answers to questions that have been made on an

individual answer sheet.

The five methods proposed by Taylor and Frye (1992), students can build their metacognitive

strategies. Imagery keeps students in mind of their previous knowledge and links the information

456


received with a representative visualization. Self-questioning and group story mapping lead students

to check their understanding. Text look backs help students reflect on understanding and remember

what has been read. Reciprocal teaching helps students examine their understanding, overcome

failure to understand words or sentences in the text, activate prior knowledge, and motivate students

to continue reading activities (Klingner, Vaughn, & Boardman, 2007). From the description, it

appears that reciprocal teaching helps students to use more metacognitive strategies when reading.

Block (2004) stated that reciprocal teaching is an approach that supports the improvement of

reading comprehension by involving metacognitive strategies. Reciprocal teaching is a method

developed by Brown and Palincsar in 1984 to improve the reading comprehension of high school

students (Klingner, Vaughn, & Boardman, 2007). In its development, reciprocal teaching is more

studied by involving elementary school students as participants, such as research conducted by

Takala (2006) and Laderer (2015). Both studies showed that reciprocal teaching could improve

students' performance in reading comprehension. Research on the effectiveness of reciprocal

teaching in high school students was done by Clark in 2003. He gave an intervention program using

reciprocal teaching approach to 15 high school students with different level of intelligence. As a

result, 90% of participants stated that the program was beneficial and 40% of participants said

reciprocal teaching improved reading comprehension. However, this research did not measure the

metacognitive strategies used,

In reciprocal teaching, there are three important components, namely scaffolding, conversation or

discussion, and understanding strategies (Klingner, Vaughn, & Boardman, 2007). In scaffolding,

the individual learns a new skill from a more competent person. The person provides help whose

level is adjusted to the individual's progress, which enables him to develop optimally. Assistance is

also gradually reduced so that in the end individuals can do the material that is taught independently

(empowering). The second component is conversation or discussion. This can add and clarify

students' knowledge (Lederer, 2000). This is an important factor in building student cognition

(Palincsar, in Lederer, 2000). The next component is four comprehension strategies, which are the

heart of the reciprocal teaching approach. The four strategies include asking, clarifying,

summarizing, and predicting, and it is a tactic commonly used by proficient readers to understand

the text (Klingner, Vaughn, & Boardman, 2007).

The principle of scaffolding in the reciprocal teaching approach will be used in this buddy reading

intervention. According to Block (2004), buddy reading is one of the learning methods that can be

used to improve students' reading comprehension. In this method, a more competent friend teaches

another friend who has competence below him/her. Teachers classify two students who have

different competence levels as "buddies" and undergo a learning program together (Block, 2004).

This method is effective for building self-regulation of students in reading to improve reading

comprehension (Block, 2004). Also, this method is proven to have many benefits, such as

improving self-confidence, ownership, and pride in students, as well as creating a comfortable

learning atmosphere (Block, 2004). Buddy reading can also increase students' motivation in reading

(Dean, as cited in Manring, 2003), and can involve the students to reading activities (Lai, as cited in

Manring, 2003).

Buddy reading method is suitable to be applied in the intervention program for high school students

because according to the psychosocial characteristics of adolescents. For teenagers, friends or peers

are a source of emotional support and encouragement for a behavioral change (Papalia, Olds, &

Feldman (2009). In adolescence, individuals rely more on friends (Papalia, Olds, & Feldman,

2009). Great help and influence in the life of adolescents, including in the academic field.

Therefore, friends or peers can become a buddy in helping a student with reading comprehension

difficulties.

The purpose of this study is to see whether the intervention program with reciprocal teaching and

buddy reading approach can increase the use of metacognitive strategies in a grade 10 student with

457


reading comprehension difficulties. Not many students in high school level are still having trouble

in understanding a text. This study uses a single subject that meets the criteria, i.e., a grade 10 high

school male student with the initials A. A is currently 16 years one month and he has difficulty in

reading comprehension. A can read fluently, but he does not know how to understand the material

being read. This makes A feels that the reading activity is an unpleasant experience and tends to

avoid it. This then adversely affects his academic performance. In reciprocal teaching, A will be

trained to use the four strategies (questioning, clarifying, summarizing, and predicting) that can

increase the use of metacognitive strategies on A when reading. The reciprocal teaching method

will be combined with buddy reading, in which A will be paired with a close friend that is more

experienced. Learning with a close friend is expected to create a comfortable learning atmosphere

for A.

Methods Research Design This study used a single-subject experimental design, to be more specific, the single-subject

experimental design in the current study was AB design, which consisted of baseline phase (A) and

treatment phase (B). Each phase had to be measured at least three times, to establish a pattern (level

or trend) and to determine the stability of the data within a phase. For this reason, the researcher

would employ three measurements during the baseline period and also three measurements in the

treatment phase.

Participant

There is one participant in this study, a grade 10 a high school student as the subject and his friend

(buddy) who taught him during the program with reciprocal teaching. The subject had difficulties in

reading comprehension. He could read fluently, but he did not understand what he read. In other

words, he had a lack of ability in reading comprehension.

Meanwhile, the buddy was chosen based on the consideration of the homeroom teacher and the

counselor. In detail, the buddy had to have the following characteristics:

a. A person who could understand lessons taught to the student and the process of teaching.

b. An individual who had excellent verbal skills and had expert reader criteria, such as having

extensive knowledge and using it to make conclusions. He also comprehended that the

purpose of reading was to build understanding, respond to the meaning of words or sentences

during reading activities, and possess and apply various vocabulary to understand the reading

material.

c. He must be interested in tutoring activities, so he seriously and willingly participated in the

program.

d. The buddy agreed to take part in the intervention program.

Instruments

One text consists of several paragraphs is chosen to be read by the student. The measurement is

carried out by using a verbal report, i.e., think aloud method. The subject is asked to tell about what

they think after reading a paragraph. After that, the subject is asked to express whatever they think

while reading the paragraph, and all the answers are voice recorded. By doing so, there is a little

chance of missing any data. During the intervention, the researcher used several tools, as follows:

a. Program Module

The module was a program implementation guide, containing intervention sessions, session

objectives, steps in each session, indicators determining the success of the sessions, tools,

duration, and where the sessions were implemented.

The program took for 6-8 days with a total number of learning sessions of 3-5 times (adjusted

to subject development). The number of sessions was determined by considering the

458


characteristics of the subject who was a high school student. The subject was predicted to

master the four strategies of reading comprehension in 3-5 times of teaching activity. A short

brief was given to the buddy, thus he understood what was expected towards him. The sum of

activities was based on the previous research on reciprocal teaching, about ten learning

sessions (Takala, 2006) to 13-15 learning sessions (Laderer, 2015).

b. Material

The materials consisted of a Think Aloud protocol (1 text), a text for the Buddy to prepare

him on the four comprehension strategies), 13 texts to be used in the process. For the

measurement, there are three texts for baseline and three texts for treatment, and also three

texts for the learning sessions. The think aloud protocol was used for measuring the

metacognitive strategies applied by the participant. All the responses of the participants will

be recorded and categorized into metacognitive strategies used by previous research.

All the materials are in Bahasa Indonesia (Indonesian language) and from grade 10 high

school textbooks. Selected texts were derived from common themes that are familiar to high

school students, such as about tours, culinary, traffic, television shows, university life, and

health. These common themes were selected to make the text appropriate and relevant to the

participants (subject and Buddy). The material for Buddy preparation was the text regarding

four strategies of reading comprehension which was written in a simple language. The

material for measurement was taken from the general encyclopedia of animals. This theme

was chosen for two reasons. First, the student has a great interest in literature about the

animal, so the theme was expected to bring up his eagerness to read. Second, literature about

animal usually have unpretentious structure, which allowed the subject to comprehend the text

and tell the researcher what he thinks. To determine the degree of difficulties of the six texts,

an expert judgment from a Bahasa Indonesia teacher was obtained (expert judgment).

c. Media

Media consisted of tools used by the researcher to explain material (details of the program and

the explanation of the understanding strategies). Media consisted of flip chart paper, some

metaplans, and colourful post-it papers. The researcher explained the material while pitching

the papers having been written, to shorten the duration of explanation and make the

participants easy to understand the material.

d. Parent’s Consent, Informed Consent, and Learning Contract

The consent form, informed consent, and learning contract contained specific intervention of

the program. They were given to the participant, the buddy, and the parents.

Procedure

The intervention program was divided into four phases, namely preparation, baseline, treatment,

and evaluation. Activities undertaken in these phases can be seen in the following chart:

Preparation

1. Participant Preparation

(Program Explanation,

Parent's Consent, Informed

Consent, Learning)

2. Subject preparation (Think

Aloud exercise)

3. Buddy preparation

(Reciprocal Teaching

exercise)

Baseline Measurement

Baseline Measurement (3

times)

Treatment Phase

1. Learning sessions of

Reciprocal Teaching

with the buddy (3

times)

2. Measurement (3

times)

Evaluation

Evaluation

Figure 1. The Intervention Program Design

459


0

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

40

45

50

Metacognitive Strategies Used

At the baseline phase, the researcher prepared both the participant and the buddy. It began with

explaining the details of the program, asking for parents’ consent for their children’s participation in

the program, and accepting the informed consent and the learning contracts. The researcher then

taught the buddy and the participant separately about their roles.

1. The participant was practiced to think aloud thus the participant would be used in the

measurement processes. This measurement was carried out to measure the metacognitive

strategies used by the participant.

2. The buddy was trained to practice the reciprocal teaching for the learning sessions.

3.

After the participant understood the Think Aloud procedure, the baseline measurement began.

In the treatment phase, the buddy led the learning process to the participant by applying the four

strategies in reading (questioning, clarifying, summarizing, and predicting). All the processes were

using conversations and discussions. At the end of each learning session, the researcher did

measurements with think-aloud protocols that had been prepared in advance. Finally, the participant

and the buddy evaluated the program and themselves for the qualitative feedback.

Results

The measurements are based on the metacognitive strategies used by the participant. The

measurement results can be seen in the following table:

Table 1.

Measurement of Metacognitive Strategies

Baseline Treatment

1 2 3 1 2 3

Number of

metacognitive

strategies

19 24 18 45 43 35

The results of these measurements are demonstrated using visual inspection techniques as follows:

Figure 2. Visual Inspection of Metacognitive Strategies Used

Based on the graph above, in overall there is an increasing number of metacognitive strategies used

by the subject from the baseline phase to the treatment phase. The increase can be said meaningful

because there is an average change in the number of metacognitive strategies the subject used, from

20.3 in the baseline phase to 41.0 in the treatment phase. The increase occurred at 101.9% . Also,

the graph also shows a sudden rise in levels from the baseline phase to the treatment phase

Baseline

Phase

Treatment

Phase

460


(immediate change in level). However, there is a decline in the third measurement, both in baseline

and treatment phase.

From the think-aloud process, all the responses used by the participant are transcribed and

categorized into the metacognitive strategies. There are sixteen metacognitive strategies in the

category, organized by their effectiveness, from number 1 as the least effective strategy, to the

number 16 as the most effective strategy in reading. The following table is presented based on that

strategy classification:

Table 2.

Use of Metacognitive Strategies Subject

No

Type of

Metacognitive

Strategies

Frequency and Percentage of Metacognitive Strategies Used

Baseline Treatment

1 2 3 1 2 3

1 Aware-Knowing 17 89% 18 75% 18 100% 3 7% 5 12% 4 11%

2 Text Evaluating - - 2 8% - - 1 2% 1 2% - -

3 Defining 1 5% 2 8% - - 1 2% 6 14% 5 14%

4 Reread - - - - - - 1 2% - - - -

5 Repeating - - - - - - - - - - - -

6 Asking Explicitly 1 5% 2 8% - - 18 40% 14 33% 12 34%

7 Ask Information - - - - - - 3 7% 5 12% 1 3%

8 Knowledge

Evaluation - - - - - - 1 2% - - - -

9 Lack of Problem - - - - - - - - - - 1 3%

10 Ask Hypothesis - - - - - - - - 2 5% 1 3%

11 Paraphrasing - - - - - - - - - - - -

12 New Information - - - - - - 1 2% - - - -

13 Verification - - - - - - - - - - - -

14 Conclusion - - - - - - 13 29% 10 23% 10 30%

15 Elaboration - - - - - - 3 7% - - 1 3%

16 Anticipation - - - - - - - - - - - -

Total 19 100% 24 100% 18 100% 45 100% 43 100% 35 100%

From the table above, it appears that there has been a change in the use of metacognitive strategies

on the subject. In the baseline phase, the subject used only four types of metacognitive strategies,

such as the aware-knowing strategy, text evaluating, defining and asking explicitly. Those strategies

are not effective in helping the participant to understand a text. In the treatment phase, the

participant uses more diverse strategies. Thus from using only four strategies, the participant uses

12 strategies. In addition to the four strategies already used in the baseline phase, the participant

also uses re-reading strategies, asking explicitly, ask information, knowledge evaluation, lack of a

problem, ask hypothesis, new information, conclusion, and elaboration.

Besides the participant use of more diverse types of strategies in the treatment phase, he also uses

more effective metacognitive strategies. In the baseline phase, subject uses the most aware-knowing

strategy (75% - 100%) which is the lowest effective strategy. During the treatment phase, mostly he

used asking explicitly strategy (33% - 40%) that had a higher level of effectiveness. In the treatment

phase, he used fewer aware-knowing strategy, like no more than 12%. The participant even begins

to use elaboration and conclusion strategies that are categorized in the 3 most effective

metacognitive strategies. In other words, in the treatment phase the use of less effective strategies

decreases and the use of more effective strategies increases.

Based on the result of the research, there is an improvement of metacognitive strategies used. There

is an obvious improvement, as visual inspection shows a change in the average number of

metacognitive strategies the participant used when reading, as well as sudden graphic level changes.

In addition to the number, the provision of interventions also increases the variety of strategies and

the level of effectiveness of the strategies the participant use. So it can be concluded that the

461


intervention program using reciprocal teaching and buddy reading can effectively increase the use

of metacognitive strategies a student with difficulty in reading comprehension.

Discussion The reciprocal by a buddy seems to help a student to use metacognitive strategies in reading.

Reciprocal teaching has three important components, namely scaffolding, conversation or

discussion, and understanding strategies (Klingner, Vaughn, & Boardman, 2007). These three

components appear to systematically increase the use of metacognitive strategies of the participant.

Previously, the participant read with little strategies, thus he had difficulties in understanding a text.

However, with little guidance from a buddy based on reciprocal teaching, he started to develop

strategies for reading. Such guidance or assistance may be an encouragement, direction, giving

examples, explanation, directing questions, discussion, participation, and so on. The provision of

guidance or assistance is helping the improvement of students' abilities and gradually reduced their

difficulties (Klingner, Vaughn, & Boardman, 2007).

In this intervention program, the participant were accompanied by a more competent buddy when

performing reading activities. During the learning process, the buddy provides assistance in the

form of discussion based on some activities such as questioning, clarifying, summarizing and

predicting. During the sessions the buddy also give encouragement, guidance, examples,

explanations, and directions through the conversation and discussion. When the participant showed

improvement in reading, the buddy reduced the help given. The buddy slowly released the

responsibility to the participant, therefore the participant was more confident in reading, especially

in using strategies in reading.

In reciprocal teaching, conversations and discussions giving the opportunity to the participant to

evaluate and improve their understanding (Gauvain, as cited in Santrock, 2011). In the search for

mutual understanding, the participant’s thinking evolves when he listens to the thoughts of others,

in this case, the buddy, (Gauvain, in Santrock, 2011). From there the participant can observe the

buddy, evaluate his skills, and imitate the strategies applied by the buddy. Through this mechanism,

internalization takes place within the individual (Santrock, 2011). Knowledge initially is external

(interdental) gradually internalized by students into the mind (instrumental).

In the reciprocal teaching approach, students learn to use four comprehension strategies, which are

questioning, clarifying, summarizing, and predicting. These four strategies are tactics commonly

used by advanced readers to get understanding (Klingner, Vaughn, & Boardman, 2007). The

strategies seem to effectively increase the strategies used by the participant, in quantity, types, and

level of effectiveness. Therefore, it can be said that the comprehension strategies taught can be the

lighter the emergence of other strategies.

As mentioned above, buddy acts as a scaffold in this intervention program. In practice, the existence

of buddy seems to have other positive effects. As stated by the participants in the evaluation

session, the learning activities conducted with close friends are considered very useful and

enjoyable. The subject looks more relaxed and free; it can be seen from the way they interact. The

pleasant atmosphere makes the participant more motivated to read.

The characteristics of buddy greatly determine the success of the program. In this program, the

buddy meets the characteristics of the expert reader, which has extensive knowledge and vocabulary

and understands that the purpose of reading is to understand it. Buddy also has an interest in

teaching activities and has a desire to be able to teach children. This is what makes the buddy

suitable to perform its role during the intervention program. Also, there are other positive things

that buddies have, that is having the ability to use metacognitive strategies with a high level of

effectiveness. In the buddy preparation session, the researcher examined the metacognitive

strategies used by a buddy, and the results were "verification," "elaboration," “conclusion,” and

462


"anticipation" strategy. These four strategies are the most effective metacognitive strategies. This

good skill helped in increasing the use of more effective metacognitive strategies in the subject.

This study has limitations related to the program preparation, program implementation, and results

in analysis. Related to the preparation of the program, the time available is limited so that the

researcher cannot ask the Indonesian language teacher to do an expert judgment. Expert judgment is

required, to ensure that materials used for measurement are at the same in difficulty level. It can

control the measurement result is as the treatment given, not because of the unequal reading

difficulty level. The drop of the third measurement can be caused by the unequal of reading

difficulty level of the text.

In the implementation, the researcher has no prescribing procedure for attendance, which makes the

participants do not feel obliged to come at a certain hour. This impacts on the participant’s

responsibility related to the sustainability of the program. In the implementation of this intervention

program, researcher gives one evaluation session at the end of the program. From the evaluation,

the researcher knows how the subject and buddy opinions about the program, as well as how their

comprehension is. If the researcher conducts an evaluation session at the end of each meeting, the

researcher will know the program participants' opinions and the insights gained from each meeting.

This information can be used to improve program implementation the next day, and conduct

program analysis more deeply. In the analysis process, the researcher analyzed the transcripts

without inter-rater agreement, which can cause bias. In the next research, it is suggested to do an

inter-rater analysis to reduce subjectivity and to enhance the reliability of the research.

References

Block, C. (2004). Teaching comprehension: The comprehension process approach. Boston: Pearson Education

Minister of Education and Culture of the Republic of Indonesia. (2013). The Regulation of the Minister of Education and Culture of

the Republic of Indonesia Number 68. ”. Access on June 26, 2017. Downloaded from

http://eadm.dindik.jatimprov.go.id/upload/hukum/salinan-permendikbud-no-45-tahun-2015.pdf

Minister of Education and Culture of the Republic of Indonesia. (2013). The Regulation of the Minister of Education and Culture of

the Republic of Indonesia Number 69. ”. Accsess on April 23, 2017. Downloaded from

https://jdih.surabaya.go.id/pdfdoc/permen_9.pdf

Flavell, J. H. (1981). Social cognitive development: frontiers and possible futures. London: Cambridge Press

Gravetter, F.J. & Forzano, L.B. (2009). Research methods for the behavioral sciences (3rd ed.). Belmont, CA: Wadsworth

Klingner, J. K., Vaughn, S., Boardman, A. (2007). Teaching reading comprehension to students with learning difficulties. New York:

The Guilford Press

Latipun. (2011). Psikologi eksperimen. Malang: UMM Press

Lederer, J. M. (2000). Reciprocal teaching of social studies in inclusive elementary classroom. Journal of Learning Disabilities,

33(1), 91-106

Manring, M. S. (2003). “Book buddy programs: providing students with improved reading and social skills”. Missouri: University of

Central Missouri

Novotny, R. & Grace, K. (2011). Reading comprehension in the secondary classroom. Mankato: Minnesota State University

OECD. (2016). PISA 2015 assessment and analytical framework: mathematics, reading, science problem solving and financial

literacy. ”. OECD Publishing

Papalia, D., Olds, S. W., & Feldman, R. D. (2009). Human development (11th ed.). New York: McGraw Hill

Royanto, L. R. M. (2012). The effect of an intervention program based on scaffolding to improve metacognitive strategies in

reading: A study of year 3 elementary school students in Jakarta. Procedia Social and Behavioral Sciences

Sanford, K. L. (2015). "Factors that Affect the Reading Comprehension of Secondary Students with Disabilities". Doctoral

Dissertations. San Francisco: The University of San Francisco

Santrock, J.W. (2011). Educational psychology (5th ed.). New York: Mc-Graw Hill Companies, Inc

Takala, M. (2006). The effects of reciprocal teaching on reading comprehension in mainstream and special (SLI) education.

Scandinavian Journal of Educational, 50(5), 559-576, DOI: 10.1080/00313830600953824

Taylor, B. M., & Frye, B. J. (1992). Comprehension strategy instruction in the intermediate grades. Reading Research and

Instruction, 32(1), 39-48

Twomey, E. (2006). Linking learning theories and learning difficulties. Australian Journal of Learning Disabilities, 11(2), 93-98,

DOI: 10.1080/19404150609546812

Westwood, P. (2008). What teachers need to know about learning difficulties? Victoria: Acer press

463


reciprocal teaching with buddy to improve metacognitive

Documents